Hi Marjorie,
Now I see. Thank you for explaining this to me and sorry for the
distraction.
Best,
Tim Finney
On 06/05/15 11:11, Burghart Marjorie wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> You are right, the first step is to understand the meaning of the original footnote :)
>
> But in this case I am pretty sure it means just what I said in my first post. The note may seem laconic, but it is perfectly clear to philologists.
> You can check the Latin text (Clementine Vulgate) for Lc 12, 32 here:
> http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Lc.html#x12_32
> What happened here is indeed a very common substitution of pronouns, "your" in the Vulgate" becoming "my" in the manuscripts of this text. The grammar here calls for a dative on "your" or "my", so "vestro" or "meo" indeed it must be.
>
> Best regards,
> Marjorie
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Tim" <[log in to unmask]>
> À: [log in to unmask]
> Envoyé: Mercredi 6 Mai 2015 02:29:27
> Objet: Re: Encoding conjecture in critical apparatus
>
> Hi Marjorie,
>
> I'm wondering whether the first step is not to work out exactly what
> that laconic footnote means. The usual reading here (if Luke 12.32) is
> "Don't worry little flock [whether] your father is pleased to give you
> the kingdom." It seems that the Vulgate has "your" (as does the Greek)
> whereas a natural change would be "my" -- typical of what scribes might
> do (i.e. "[whether] my father is pleased...") though the Nestle-Aland
> apparatus gives no hint of such a change. However, the Latin would then
> require "mei" (i.e. "my"), wouldn't it? So the note remains a bit of a
> mystery. Perhaps "m. codd." means "many codices" (i.e. m. = multis)?
>
> Best,
>
> Tim Finney
>
> On 04/05/15 12:00, TEI-L automatic digest system wrote:
>>> On May 2, 2015, at 18:17 , Burghart Marjorie<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> I would like to encode an existing critical edition, where this is found:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Text:
>>>> Nolite timere, pusillus grex, complacuit patri meo(a) dare uobis regnum.
>>>>
>>>> Apparatus:
>>>> (a) meo] conieci, m. codd., uestro Vulg.
>>>>
>>>> Some explanations: this means that the wor "meo" in the sentence is a conjecture of the editor ("conieci").
>>>> All the manuscripts bear the same abbreviated reading, "m." ("m. codd.").
>>>> But this sentence is actually a biblical quotation, and in the Latun Bible, the Vulgate, the reading here is "uestro" ("uestro Vulg."). This is why the editor thinks "m."stands for "meo", i.e. also a pronoum but for a different person, which makes perfect sense.
>>>>
>>>> How would you guys encode this?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Marjorie